Humanities desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 29

Since when is Southgate part of London??

The article on Amy Winehouse claims shes from "Southgate,London"...Southgate cant be called a part of London...And even the article on Southgate claims its London...If we want to be real to Wikipedia readers,we should mention its Outer London,at best,but honestly....Have you ever met ANYONE living in Southgate and coming to inner London to work?? Cmon....Its like saying Barnet or Brent are parts of London,init??

77.105.54.39 00:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate is in Enfield which is a borough of London. Yes, it is an "Outer London" borough, but it is still London. As for Brent and Barnet, they too are boroughs of London. Hey, it isn't my fault that London's administration has spread to absorb everything around it. -- Kainaw^(what?) 00:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Init Kens idea to make everything in a 100 miles around a part of London? Cause Im sure theres no other "genious" bright enough to make Barnet part of London...It has to be our old Ken init...That alone is a reason for him to resign... 77.105.54.39 01:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Ken had enough power in 1965 to force everyone in government to form the borough system, then you can claim it is his fault. Or, you can read London borough and know the real history (and knowing is half the battle!) -- Kainaw^(what?) 02:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"London" and "Greater London" are both defined in many different ways. Huge chunks of areas with London phone numbers are under Middlesex, Harrow, Enfield (etc) postcodes. Overlapping both are the "London Boroughs". And yes, I've heard many local people refer to Southgate as "London". This is partly a function of living in an ancient city that's grown enormously over time. You might be interested to know that on Sept 3 1802, William Wordsworth stood on "Westminster Bridge and wrote a poem imaginatively entitled "Composed upon Westminster Bridge, Sept. 3, 1802". In the poem, he describes what he could see... which included fields. Presumably, Wordsworth would have considered parts of what we call "Central London" to be the back of beyond. --Dweller 14:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller,I must agree with you,what we call Central London now was suburbs or even worse.Just recently I found out that around 200 years ago Lancaster Gate,Bayswater,Paddington and all em parts were covered with fields just 150 years ago.

HOWEVER,I AM VERY PROUD TO HAVE REQUESTED KENS RESIGNATION YESTERDAY,FOR TODAY IT WAS THE FINAL PROOF OF HIS LACK OF COMPETENCE.AFTER TODAYS EVENTS,KEN LIVINGSTON SHOULD RESIGN RIGHT AWAY.

THE ARTICLE ON KEN NOW IS EXTREMLY BIASED AND IT DOES NOT EVEN STATES HALF OF CONTRAVERSAL MOVES HE MADE AND IS STILL MAKING,IT DOES NOT EVEN INCLUDES HIS COMMUNIST PAST.

On the other side,Camerons article mentions even "allegations of drug use"!?!?!?!If we want to make the "Sun" out of Wiki,then we should do it equaly in all our articles,and I can find at least 2 dozens of allegations against Ken,of which most are in fact true,unlike Camerons "drug use".

Anyway,after todays disgrace,Ken Livingston should not just resign,but his role in days before and after 7/7 and 21/7,as well as in todays events should be examined by the authorities

212.200.223.183 00:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOAP. -- Kainaw^(what?) 14:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Shi'a Muslims

I know that Iran's majority religion is Shi'ite Muslim, because I know that it's Sunni counterpart are minority. the question is that "Is Iran the muslim nation whose majority religion is Shit'ite religion?" Please don't refer me to the articles because they sometimes give wrong statistics or population of each muslim nation and I'm wondering, is Lebanon's majority religion is Shi'ite or Sunni muslim?

I could refer you to the article Demographics of Islam, but since you don't want to be referred to articles, I won't do so. I wonder, though, what makes you think any answers you might get here are more reliable than the articles the respondents will get their data from? Or did you think we here are personally in the business of census data collection in Iran, Lebanon, and other nations? 10:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If I recall, Lebanon does not have a religious majority for one particular sect. They are about 60% Muslim (40% Shi'ite, 18% Sunni 2% Druze), 40% Christian. I will refrain from giving sources at your request. Iran, on the otherhand is the stronghold of the Shia religion, and they are majority Shia there. -Czmtzc 12:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, that means that Shi'ites are majority in Lebanon.

The other country with a clear Shi'ite majority is Iraq. Marco polo 16:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain probably also has a Shi'ite majority. Marco polo 16:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shi'a are not technically a majority in Lebanon because their percentage is less than 50% (probably anywhere from 35 to 40%). However, they are believed to be the largest religious group in that country. Iran of course is a majority-Shi'ite country (around 90%). Iraq, Bahrain, and Azerbeijan are the other majority-Shi'ite countries. Slacker 21:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Shiite says Shia constitutes a majority in Yemen, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Bahrain and especially Iran, and gest their information from http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/MidEastReligionCore_lg.jpg and http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/. Corvus cornix 20:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the current president of Syria is a Alawite shi'ite muslim. is that mean alawites are majority muslims of that country or anybody, either Sunni or shi'ite can be a president of that country?

It's true that the president of Syria is an Alawite, but the majority of Syrians are in fact Sunnis. The constitution of Syria requires that the president be Muslim, but does not specify to which sect he must belong. As for Yemen, Zaydi Shi'ites may have been the the majority in North Yemen before the union with South Yemen in the early 90's, but that is no longer the case now that the North and South have become one state. Slacker 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames

The other day I was thinking about how certain colours are very popular surnames in both English and and other languages. For example, Green (name), Black (surname), Gray (surname), Brown (surname) and White (surname). Now, its not difficult to appreciate how these names arose, especially considering the colours are abundant in nature. However, it therefore seems surprising the other "naturally occurring" colours, specifically red, blue and yellow, do not appear to be common surnames (at least not in English). Anyone know why? Rockpocket 07:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reid/Read as a surname could be derived from the word for red [1]. Blue is unlikely to describe someone in the same way black/brown/grey for colouring of hair might. I guess if blonde hair was never described as yellow the same would apply to that. Mainly guess work though I must admit. Cyta 07:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the surname "Scarlet", although this is actually derived from the Scarlet (cloth), rather than Scarlet (colour). "Teal" is also an uncommon surname, although it can mean either the colour or the duck. Some people are surnamed "Red", although this is generally as a translation of the much more common German surname "Roth".[2] Laïka 11:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think about why those, or any, surnames were applied. You threw down a descriptor if it was unusual. If it was unusual to have dark skin, you might say, "That's John the Black." If it was customary to have yellow hair, it would be useless to say, "That's John Yellow hair." Since a person wasn't going to be blue or red, "Blue" and "Red" aren't going to be distinguishing marks, and since the Europeans would think pinkish is normal, the same would be true of Pink. Green is probably an occupation and not a descriptor. Think also about why these particular names got applied. "White" was not merely the color, but also "chief," so I don't think it's a descriptor, either. It's more like "Rice" in that way (which is ricce or "chief/wealthy/notable/noble). The "Reeds" are location markers, just like "Moss" and "Church" are. So, if we need colors to come as descriptors, we're going to be pretty limited. Geogre 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brown appears to confound your unusual desriptor hypothesis, though. According to our article, "The surname Brown can also be traced back to persons with brown characteristics, such as brown eyes, brown hair, or often wearing brown attire". Brown hair and eyes would have been very common in Europe (certainly more so than "yellow", red hair or blue eyes). Mind you, it is an extremely common name, so perhaps it was widely attributed as a descriptor. Rockpocket 17:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a Brown, living in a country (Ireland) where the most common colouring would probably be brown hair, pale skin and grey eyes, I suspect it's the brown eyes and slightly darker complexion most of my family have that were distinctive. --Nicknack009 04:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if our article on the name is at all right. It seems much more like a profession than color, to me, but it could also be a descriptor of place -- brown ford, brown field, brown any thing -- where the color is a clipping of a place name. Family names just don't work very well if they're attributes of a particular person. E.g. all those Norse by-names didn't translate into family names. Geogre 19:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of interest, here are the top-ranked names of some colors mentioned in this thread, according to the 1990 US Census. --TotoBaggins 18:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name    %Pop  Rank
BROWN   0.621 5
WHITE   0.279 14
GREEN   0.183 35
GRAY    0.106 69
BLACK   0.063 149
REID    0.046 232
ROTH    0.018 656
BLUE    0.011 1162
READ    0.006 1957
GREY    0.004 2782
TEAL    0.003 3762
RED     0.002 6840
ORANGE  0.002 7312
PINK    0.001 8703
VIOLET  0.000 19372
YELLOW  0.000 30865
SCARLET 0.000 54438
PURPLE  0.000 61003

Blond people tended to have been called "Fair-haired", so look for names like Fairbairn, etc. And the surname of "Blue" most likely comes from "Ballew", "Billiou", and such. Corvus cornix 20:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of names seem to come from hair colour. For instance, redheads received names such as Russell, Rufus, Rory, Flannery (from flannabhra, or red eyebrows), and Ross, while blonds could get everything from Fairbairn to Whitehead to Finley (from fionnlagh, or white warrior). --Charlene 06:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe noone's brought up Reservoir Dogs yet. Well done on keeping things serious. Maybe when they were deciding surnames noone wanted to be Mr Pink, and that's why it's less popular. 137.138.46.155 07:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am unable to quote sources for this, but I recall that the use of the word "pink" for the colour is relatively recent compared with the other colour names quoted. It referred originally to the serrated edges of the flower of the carnation family rather than to its colour. The colour was formerly called "rose" as it is in many European languages. Thus it is likely that Thomas Pink the shirtmaker is descended from another tailor who pinked the edges of cloth to stop it fraying.SaundersW 08:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baron von Mildenstein

I was looking for an article on the above individual and Nazi connections with Zionism before the Second World War, but can find nothing. It is possible to find some information on his activities in a google search, but some of the sites are-ahem-somewhat on the 'dodgy' side, to say the least. Can someone please give me the unbiased facts? MindyE 07:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all surprised that the career of Mildenstein is being used as political ammunition, MindyE, because he was involved in attempting to construct a working political 'partnership' between the Nazi state and Zionist movement. Now, could any subject be more loaded than that?! I have to move carefully here, and will try to be as objective as I can. The chief point to hold in mind is that the aim of Nazi policy for much of the pre-war period was to encourage as much Jewish migration from Germany as possible. Inevitably, whatever political and ideological differences existed, this aim overlapped, to a significant degree, with similar aims by the Zionists, anxious to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

One has to remember that when the Nazis came to power in January 1933 they had no agreed solution on how the perceived 'Jewish problem' was to be tackled. There were those, of course, like Julius Streicher, who advocated an immediate expulsion of all Jewish people from German territory, though more moderate influences were quick to point out the implications of such a move for the German economy, still in deep depression. Beyond approving limited gestures, like the one-day boycott of Jewish businesses in April 1933, Hitler gave no clear lead in the matter, which left the way open to initiatives by agencies within the state; agencies like the SS, which began to research possible policy options. And from the midst of the SS came Baron Leopold Itz von Mildenstein, a self-appointed 'expert' on the Jewish question.

Mildenstein, who was born in Prague in 1902, had taken an early interest in Zionism, even going so far as to attend Zionist conferences to help deepen his understanding of the movement. He actively promoted Zionism as a way out of the official impasse on the Jewish question; as a way, in other words, of making Germany Judenrein (free of Jews). The Zionists, whose movement had grown tremendously in popularity among German Jews since Hitler came to power, were keen to co-operate. On April 7 1933 the Juedische Rundschau, the bi-weekly paper of the movement, declared that of all Jewish groups only the Zionist Federation of Germany were capable of approaching the Nazis in good faith as 'honest partners.' The Federation then commissioned one Kurt Tuchler to make contact with possible Zionist sympathisers within the Nazi Party, with the aim of easing emigration to Palestine. Tuchler approached Mildenstein, who was asked to write something positive about Jewish Palestine in the Nazi press. Mildenstein agreed, on condition that he be allowed to visit the country in person, with Tuchler as his guide. So, in the spring of 1933 an odd little party of four set out from Berlin, consisting of Mildenstein and Tuchler with their respective wives. Mildenstein's experiences were later reported in twelve instalments in Der Angriff, Goebbels' own paper, beginning on 26 September 1934, under the title Ein Nazi faehrt nach Palestina ( A Nazi travels to Palestine). Perhaps the most curious aspect of this whole bizarre affair is that Der Angriff even commissioned a medal to celebrate this journey, with a Swastika on one side and a Star of David on the other.

On his return, Mildenstein's suggestion that the solution to the Jewish problem lay in mass migration to Palestine was accepted by his superiors within the SS. In 1935 he was put in charge of the Jewish Desk in the RSHA-Section 11/112-, under the overall control of Reinhardt Heydrich. SS officials were even instructed to encourage the activities of the Zionists within the Jewish community, who were to be favoured over the 'assimilationists', said to be the real danger to National Socialism. Even the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 had a special Zionist 'provision', allowing the Jews to fly their own flag.

In the end Mildenstein fell out of favour, because migration to Palestine was not proceeding at a fast enough rate. His departure from the RSHA after ten months in office also saw a shift in SS policy, marked by the publication of a pamphlet warning of the dangers of a strong Jewish state in the Middle East. It was written by another 'expert', who had been invited to join Section 11/112 by Mildenstein himself. His name was Adolf Eichmann.

If anyone would like to follow my footsteps here I would recommend the following;

The Jews in Germany by H. G. Adler, 1969.
Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, 1970.
The War Against the Jews by Lucy Dawidowicz, 1975
German and Jew by G. L. Mosse, 1970
Baron von Mildenstein and the SS support of Zionism in Germany, 1934-1936 by Jacob Boas, in History Today, January 1980.

And, of course, the relevant editions of Der Angriff. Clio the Muse 01:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold von Mildenstein makes use of Clio the Muse's work here. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: The RSHA did not come into being until Sept. 1939; Section II/112 was a sub-office of the SD until the SD was folded into the RSHA. Otherwise, good job. Kierzek (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shailendra-Hindi film lyricist-I want the text of "Jalta Hai Panjab"

According to Wikipedia:

"Shailedra started his career as an employee with Indian Railways. His job bought him to Mumbai (then Bombay) in 1947. He started writing poetry during these days. Once, when he was reading out his poem Jalta hai Punjab at a public meeting, filmmaker Raj Kapoor noticed him. He offered to buy poems written by Shailendra and use them for his movie Aag (1948). Shailendra, a member of the left wing IPTA, was wary of mainstream Indian cinema and refused. However, after the birth of his son, Shaily, he needed money and himself approached Raj Kapoor"

I was curious to read the text of the poem "Jalta Hai Panjab" but it is nowhere to be found!

Trotsky and Rivera

Is it true that Diego Rivera broke with Leon Trotsky because of Trotsky's love affair with Frida Kahlo? This is the suggestion in 'Frida', the 2002 biopic starring Salma Hayek. I've looked at the articles here on Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera and Leon Trotsky, but am not one bit wiser. Please forgive me for saying so, but-aside from this issue-I feel that the pages on Kahlo and Rivera need a lot of improvement. They do your encyclopedia no favors as they stand. Pacific231 13:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a wiki; if you see possibilities for improvement, go ahead. --Lambiam ^Talk 14:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but please don't put anything about a romance in, unless you have documentary evidence for it. Films don't have to meet WP:V, but we do. Still, we need, always, detailed readers and researchers on major figures -- esp. since a lot of experts suffer the paradox of expertise. The more you know, the more you are likely to feel daunted by a biographical article and the more likely you are to nibble around at the margins. Geogre 15:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit of googling turns up a wide variety of POV assertions but at least some focus on political disagreement [3] and [4] Mhicaoidh 00:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is history and there is Hollywood, and the two shall never be found in the same place at the same time! However, having said this, it is only fair to add that I think that Frida is a reasonable 'approximation' of a complex life, and Hayek is superb in the role of the great artist.

Frida had a brief affair with Trotsky in the summer of 1937, not long after he came to Mexico, but this was most assuredly not the reason for his break with Rivera. This did not come until the winter of 1938-39, while Frida was absent at an exhibition of her work in New York and then Paris. The breach, according to Hayden Herrera, the author of Frida, was caused by a combination of personal and political differences. Rivera had an expansive personality, one that did not harmonise well with that of the didactic and humourless Trotsky. More and more the two men came into open disagreement, over the nature of the Soviet state, over trade union work, and over Rivera's support for Francisco Mujica's bid for the Mexican presidency. But these disagreements in point of detail came down to one big thing: Riviera was simply not the kind of man who could fit easily within the narrow political and personal discipline demanded by people like Trotsky. He was, as he told the old Bolshevik, 'a bit of an anarchist', which is as good an assessment of his politics-and his personality-as any. In Paris Frida reported the breach in a letter to a friend "Diego has now fought with the Fourth International and told piochitas [Trotsky] to go to hell in a very serious manner." And as far as she was concerned he was completely right. Clio the Muse 02:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movies featuring the Holy Roman and/or Byzantine Empires

The only one I know of is Amadeus (film). Please name some, in the English language, of course. Thanks, 68.110.8.21 14:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attila (TV miniseries) has the Eastern Roman Emperor, but that's not quite the Byzantine period yet. Heraclius appears in The Message. Charles V is in any movie about Martin Luther. I can't think of any others with the Byzantine emperor, but I'm sure there must be more with the Holy Roman Emperors...I just don't know where to begin searching. Adam Bishop 16:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you should search for medieval-themed movies and TV series from Germany, Austria, or Greece. Hollywood does not seem to be particularly interested in either empire. --Ghirla^-трёп- 20:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Charlemagne, but it's in French. --TotoBaggins 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your English language stipulation is very very limiting. That's like asking for films about the American Revolution made in Urdu. Considering Napoleon effectively ended the HRE at Austerlitz, you might want to try out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_about_Napoleon. --Rajah 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page has a list of films with Medieval settings, with a subsection for Byzantine-set films.--Pharos 23:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And according to them, the film version of A Struggle for Rome is the single most ambitious Byzantine-themed film, with Orson Welles as Justinian!--Pharos 23:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why hasnt Count Belisarius been filmed. Mind you I hate to think what the Hollywood blender would do to it Mhicaoidh 00:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Penn as Justinian ? Mhicaoidh 03:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Angelina Jolie as Theodora, of course! Adam Bishop 15:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed another: Marie Antoinette (2006 film). 68.110.8.21 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear vs. Diesel Submarines

Why do Russia (and other countries, such as Germany) continue to research, develop and bring to market diesel powered submarines? Why does the US and Great Britain only research and develop nuclear powered submarines? Why are the US and UK submarine fleets all nuclear? Why are other fleets either all diesel (Germany), or diesel and nuclear (Russia)? - MSTCrow 16:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear has some advantages, but is expensive and demanding to develop and maintain, and brings dangers of radiation. AnonMoos 17:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a submariner, but it makes sense that a country interested only in protecting its shipping lanes near the home ports could get by with diesels and save billions. In a local or regional conflict with less than state of the art ships, the diesels would not need the ability to travel all over the world without surfacing, and they can sink the crappy ships of the navies of countries which might seek to blockade or harrass the country (consider the Argentine navy's World War 2 surplus cruiser, the Belgrano which the British sank in the Falklands war with World War 2 design torpedoes fired from a nuclear attack sub; Belgrano didn't even have sonar, and a much cheaper diesel sub could have sunk it with the same torpedoes. Granted this was far from Britain, but in middle east conflicts or Asian conflicts the subs would likely be fighting not that far from home ports. Per Upholder/Victoria class submarine they are also quieter and more manoeuvrable, though slower and unable to stay submerged as long. Edison 17:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Washington State Law

Hello, I am looking to find the answer to two questions about law. What is the name of the published law of Washington State and what is the name of the rules and regulations of that published law? As I see it, the published law is the Washington State Constitution and the rules and regs is the Washington Administrative Code. Is this correct? It all looks like published law to me, just referring to different areas of the law. Can someone help me on this?

Thank you,

Amy Mills Amyjomills 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Law and Agency Rules on the Washington State Legislature website. The State statues are the Revised Code of Washington, and the rules and regulations are the Washington Administrative Code (although the Washington State Register may contain some recent rules not otherwise published). The Washington State Constitution otherwise states the "structure and function of the government of the State of Washington." –Pakman044 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amy Mills, your question seems to indicate a little confusion. It might help if you explain a little bit how the question originated. Specifically, your distinction between "published law" and "rules and regulations" is a tad unclear.

Generally, legal scholars distinguish between Substantive law and Procedural law. Substantive law, for example, deals with what citizens are allowed to do without getting arrested, what types of things people can sue each other for, and so forth. In contrast, procedural law deals with what steps you have to go through to actually file a lawsuit, the statute of limitations, the process for dealing with state agencies and so forth. All of these are "published".

Here is a very simple outline that may help clarify this:

Publication of Substantive law includes:
- case law [5] (including published court opinions)
- statutory law (enacted by the state legislature)
- constitutional law (the Washington State Constitution as well as the United States Constitution)
Publication of Procedural law includes:
- Civil procedure (rules of civil procedure)
- Criminal procedure (rules of criminal procedure)
- Administrative law (administrative procedure)
- Probate
- Admission to the bar in the United States [6]

Note: some cases and statutes deal with procedural law as well, and administrative rulemaking covers substantive law, there is some overlap. Also note, that United States Federal law, also published, is relevant to the State of Washington as well. HTH. dr.ef.tymac 17:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see here the regulations made by agencies under authority delegated by the legislature, which may have force of law; I think Ms Mills was asking about these. —Tamfang 02:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's under Administrative law. See Washington Administrative Code (WAC) and Washington State Register and rulemaking flowchart . dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "administrative law" include both the laws governing the agencies and the regulations made by the agencies? —Tamfang 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although that is a simplification, since, (as I am sure you recognize by the content of your remarks) the agencies under consideration are enacted pursuant to authority which is delegated to them by the relevant branch of the government. This authority obviously must derive from the Constitution, (or the people collectively). So technically, it's all "Constitutional law" ... nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, these are the distinctions made by legal scholars and researchers; a distinction reflected in the publications, treatises, course materials and designated areas of practice and specialization you are likely to encounter in most instances. Yes, it is a very broad generalization, but to get more specific would require more knowledge of what motivated Amy's original question, as well as what specific agency is under consideration. dr.ef.tymac 01:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speed limit in automobiles

I was wondering, considering the fact that almost all civilian vehicles can reach up to 220 km/h, wouldn't it be a good idea to cripple their engines' top speed to let's say 120-130 km/h to prevent accidents caused by speeding violations ? Matt714 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same basic question was asked not long ago. Not sure where you live but I think it's a stretch to say almost all civilican vehicles can go 220 km/h (about 137 mph). That's on the high side for a top speed. 120-130 km/h is pretty ridiculously low for a top speed. Basic reasons this idea is unpopular is: cars are sold all over the world, and different places have different speed limits. People are unlikely to want to buy a car with such a speed restriction. That said, governors are common, but they typically limit top speeds anywhere from about 110mph to about 155mph. Also I'm not sure how much evidence there is that such a restriction would help- a lot of accidents are in towns, where even 120km/h is way too fast. Friday (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Now I'm getting thoroughly into the realm of personal opinion, but..) If police were actually concerned about traffic safety, they really ought to drive around looking for bad drivers and ticketing them, instead of sitting and reading the newspaper with their radar guns on. Where I live, some of the speed limits are quite conservative- I see nothing automatically unsafe about a competent driver in a well-maintained vehicle exceeding (say) 65mph on a major highway. On the other hand, I see people turning left way too close to cars all the time, and that causes quite a number of dangerous accidents, even if the cars are only going 40-50mph. Friday (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as long as we're OTing it... certainly around here, and I imagine in most places, the police on the highways set up speed traps..... where it's safe to speed, because 1) that's where people speed and 2) that's where it's safe to stop them. I.e., long straight stretches of highway which are often not overcrowded. On the other hand, when it gets congested with a lot of traffic, a lot of curves, a lot of exit and entrance ramps, and no shoulders, where there are accidents daily, you'll never see a speed trap. Gzuckier 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical question about Runnymede

Let's say that a pregnant British woman was visiting the Kennedy memorial at Runnymede (technically American territory) and went into sudden labor and gave birth to the child there. Since the US gives citizenship to anyone born in its territory, would that child have a legitimate claim to American citizenship? Thanks in advance for humoring me. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I am not a lawyer, but... By my reading of this sentence: "Children born to foreign diplomats or to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth." from Birthright citizenship in the United States of America, the answer would be no. The memorial at Runnymede is more less under the control of a foreign power. Now, if a woman gave birth in an overseas embassy, which are presumably under the control of the US, then yes, her baby would be a US citizen. --Rajah 22:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside Rajah's cunning point about control, there is also the matter of what "U.S. territory". 8 USC 1401 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html says "a person born in the United States". I think in this context the meaning of "in the United States" has a strict interpretation - it means (as our United States article defines it) "fifty states, one federal district, and fourteen territories." That's not the same at all as saying "places under US jurisdiction", and indeed there are lots of places under US jurisdiction which don't fall within that strict definition: US flag aircraft and ships in international waters; foreign flag aircraft and ships in US waters/airspace (note 1); US military bases abroad (note 2); US embassies,consulates, and missions abroad; US bases in the Antarctic. There also were (but I there now aren't any left) US overseas possessions (most notably the Phillipines) where birth did not confer US citizenship. Our article on Presidential hopeful John McCain (who was born in the Canal Zone) links to a (lighthearted) newspaper story on the birthplaces of various Presidential candidates (as I rather suspect Panamanians born in the Canal Zone didn't acquire US citizenship, it must be another of the Philipines like-territories). So it's not clear, either from the Wikipedia articles or their links, exactly what "U.S territory" is (when considering such places) - I guess it's very likely that little odds-and-sods like the Runnymede thing will fall into the "things we own but which aren't our territory" category.

note1: Cuban boat-people who are picked up by the US coast guard in US waters (but who don't make it ashore) are held not to have entered the US, and are immediately sent back to Cuba

note2: the main reason Camp Delta is at GITMO and not in Wyoming is jurisdictional - the Government argues that GITMO isn't part of the United States and thus it has more leeway in deciding which jurisdiction applies - the extent to which that is true remains a matter of much argument -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Finlay. Also, I'm pretty sure in cases like Runnymede and certain military ceremonies the foreign "ownership" doesn't any practical legal consequences at all, purely ceremonial. At least I've never heard of a legal case being decided on such an issue.--Pharos 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with what Finlay said. The territorial waters and Gitmo points are extremely valid too, because if you can get into a US embassy, then you can claim asylum (just like the Cubans do when they can plant one foot on a Floridian beach). So, I guess we can sum up by saying if you're born on soil that is under U.S. jurisdiction, you're a US citizen. Do you agree with me that US embassies are under U.S. jurisdiction? --Rajah 01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I do, I've just never heard of anyone claiming asylum at one of these overseas military cemeteries, so I question whether the same law really applies as to an embassy.--Pharos 05:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any real evidence that supports a claim that anyone born in a US embassy really would be a citizen by birth; I imagine such a thing might have happened (in some crisis or other) but I rather imagine the Government would contest such a claim (fearing an influx of preggie ladies hiding in embassy closets). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for their replies. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed before, but no one has come to a conclusion, as it's really a Supreme Court decision in the making. George Romney, former Governor of Michigan, ran for President even though he was born in Mexico to US citizen parents. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone. If he becomes the Republican Party candidate, I fully expect to see a challenge to his legality as a Presidential candidate. Corvus cornix 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Goldwater (presidential candidate in 1964) was born in Arizona before statehood, if memory serves, and the question was raised and, I guess, dismissed. I'm in Romney's shoes, and wonder sometimes whether I'm a citizen of any State and if so which. —Tamfang 03:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're a citizen wherever you can vote, it's really not that complicated.--Pharos 03:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's happened in the US, but the Canadian government once deemed a hospital room to be Dutch territory so that a Dutch princess could be born as a natural citizen of the Netherlands. This was during the Second World War, when the Dutch royal family was living in Ottawa. --Charlene 06:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(That's Princess Margriet, by the way. Adam Bishop 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Interpersonal Relationships

Is there a specific name for the field devoted to the study of these? 161.13.1.32 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

Perhaps a branch of sociology? (JosephASpadaro 22:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This is generally an interdisciplinary field and would fall mostly under sociology or psychology. Interpersonal_relationship#Theories. There is no Interpersonalrelationshipology though. --Rajah 22:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a bit, thanks! Are there any studies of such things in literature? MelancholyDanish 19:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)MelancholyDanish[reply]

I imagine there must be tons of information on this topic ... (JosephASpadaro 22:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Social psychology 80.3.46.188 15:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

concentration camps

Yes, I'd like to ask a question. In the Iraqi war going on right now, are there concentration camps for middle eastern's like the Japanese in WWII? Please and Thank you in advance.

If you are referring to Japanese American internment, then the answer is no. There is currently no official internment of foreign citizens or racial groups in the US. However, some argue that the so called "unlawful combatants" being held at Camp X-Ray without trial is similar to a concentration camp (the "Gulag of our times," according to Amnesty International). Rockpocket 22:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]